Skip to main content

About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
544

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Antonini 3, Dolores 2, Alma 1, The City 1, Walgreen 1, San Francisco 1, Debose 1, Triangle 1, University Look 1, Sarah Vaness 1, Octavia 1, Fred Pollock 1, Mr. Cohen 1, Moore 1, Nathan 1, Peter Cohen 1, Peter Lewis 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV2    [untitled]  

    October 4, 2012
    4:00 - 4:30pm PDT  

4:00pm
in line with the existing look and feel of a great neighborhood and support the surrounding beauty as opposed to putting up a barrier that blocks itthere are two primary issues that i would like to express as a neighbor. the lack of family-friendly development; the cumulative density impact to the local infrastructure and safety concerns as a cyclist. i am recently married a couple of weeks ago, and planning to raise a family in this beautiful city; i was surprised to see that the two-bedroom units planning here for 2175 market are only 750 or less feet. out find it strained to raise a family in such a place. the result is having singles or families with children. second i ride my bike to work
4:01pm
and my wife takes public transportation the state; i'm tentative to pull out of the garage on 15th as cars race across the street to make the 14 second light. ultimately, the more dangerous situation for cyclists as myself navigating the traffic. in summary i suggest reducing the height of the traffic to four stories, expanding the two-bedroom units to 1,000 sq. ft. and adding three bedroom units and keep existing curb cuts. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> thank you. my name is sarah
4:02pm
vaness, i live in the same building as nathan, next to the walgreens exit. we are thrilled about the project, at huge improvement to the neighborhood; we are happy to see much-needed rental space in the neighborhood as well as integrated low-income housing proposition, is all positive. we are concerned about a couple of things that are serious but solvable. the density issue high concern for me, both in terms of the people brought in by the high number and the small size; they affect potential family bombin dwellings. -- in the funeral home behind that, the development on 15th and dolores and and and. impact on muni, is putting the
4:03pm
cart before the horse. i can't get on the train for 15-min. during commute time. the surrounding parks, i don't hear the proposals about improving green space, both dolores, alma square, corona heights, immense pressure from all of his projectsthat's it is a huge concern as well as the crowded living conditions. as someone who grew up in the cityi'm glad to see this on the agenda, projects that are supporting the agenda itemi agree that that seem like they arei know
4:04pm
they are asking for variance of open space, they put it on the roof; my understanding is that the intention is to create jobs and put space between neighbors. plaintiff space on the roof does not do that; it puts the use of that area closer to more neighbors. i urge you to deny the conditional use of the open space. safety; there is a rigid commitment to new curb cuts; i was almost hit this morning, i can't imagine what it would look like when there entry and exits from walgreens and from the building running into each other. turning different ways in the
4:05pm
kind of crazy street. i ask for your consideration of keeping those curb cuts on market streets and moving the entrance for safety. >> thank you very much. >> commissioners again peter cohen; we have a letter on file with the staff referred to, fully endorsing this project. i will get into a few of the issues we talk about but listening to deputy speaker i appreciate when other folks in the community come to you who are not professionals of the lectern; those are real, that's the experience people have. reflecting an everyday experience, and doing the best possible, to try to make the project
4:06pm
addresses issues rather than falling back on planning code and design guidelines and professional stuff. i implore you to take that seriously. we spent a lot of time with our projects as you know; we have done reviewing almost every one of the projects mentioned on market street i hope we don't live to regret it; we spent nine months altogether looking at this project; a lot of back-and-forth deliberations; the design evolved significantly not only with the debose triangle, we made an effort to bring together the neighborhood on a design project,
4:07pm
castro benefit district, debose, getting a consensus, unified voice. we are happy to understand that there is an attempt to increase the on-site bmrs; the project sponsor was trying to get separate financing to get 20 percent rather than the standard 15 percent, which is a huge issue for the deboe triangle, getting low-income housing. the concern from the upper market -- you have heard from a college -- i have not seen a single non-formative retail, so we wanted to make sure that the sponsor understood that this would be adamantly opposed; the spaces had to be designed
4:08pm
in proactive marketing. lastly this project does not have any in-kind proposal for reasons i explain to you; we do not know how best to get real ground-level improvements to match development. we would be happy to talk with you commissioner or the sponsor as a follow-up, but is a critical need. >> peter lewis; to clarify in reference to appeal we never voted one way or the other; we obviously did have concerns. in reference to the project, our official position is approval with conditions. i will like to clarify that in reference to the design
4:09pm
we actually strongly support the design; as you know, it has a faux-flat iron look, appropriate to the area. in reference to the density, we appreciate the fact -- it is my understanding the project sponsor is now offering 40 percent, two-bedroom units, 25 percent open space even though they're using the roof of one of the buildings to meet that open space requirement. yet again, it is our calculation but the two-bedroom units, 730-sq.ft. even at 750 would be way too small for young families in the neighborhood. the bedrooms are more like large closets than bedrooms. anybody who has had any kids
4:10pm
knows that needs to be more space than that. we hope that -- with the idea of you not requiring those it is to be larger but hoping that you will reduce the amount of units overall which would create a less impact on the environment. not only on the parking but it would be more family-friendly, which obviously would very much support. in reference to the parking support the .5 spaces per unit, appropriate for the area. in reference to the project sponsors, having the tradition of going to all of the committee groups in the area, counteracts the opposition or position, we think this is unfortunate. is defined in our -- context
4:11pm
survey adopted as of march 17, 2010, in the mission dolores district, we have a baby boom going on, reduce the density and create larger family-friendly units. >> thank you. >> any additional public comment? seeing none, the public comment portion is close. commissioner moore. >> i would like to say for the record that the planning commission does not have any in flames who moves into a two-bedroom unit.
4:12pm
we can ask the developer why the units are smaller but we cannot basically prescribed the size of the units. is that a correct statement mr. --? >> acting zoning demonstrator. it is a correct statement in as much of the planning commission cannot through deed restriction or any mechanism regulate the person that moves into particular dwelling unit. >> that includes the size of the units? we do have minimums, but we do not have maximums. we are still operating within prescribed limits of unit sizes. nothing in this project is below code, is that correct? >> the project is before you, seeking your conditional use authorization; as such, you have the opportunity to determine if the project is
4:13pm
or is not necessary or desirable for the neighborhood, or the city. that is one of the factors that goes into your determination. >> i will consider the process necessary and desirable because it creates an innovative solution for a difficult side. part of the idea of complying with sb 375, is to create units smaller than what we are used to. whether or not this plays out in the market is an altogether separate discussion; i do commend the architect that dealt with a difficult project in a way that this project offers us to look at it. another way that strikes me as an innovative idea was mr. cohen's idea
4:14pm
that this exploit intersections and the difficulties all along market street, and in future projects that will be occupying these sliver sized projects should consider finding mechanisms where contribution fees are being used to find innovative ways of dealing with improving intersection, pedestrian crossing, and side what conditions around these buildings that the impact of higher density gradually creates a safer movement environment for all participants. that is something that we might not be able to condition. i think that it would be forward-looking addition to the market/octavia plan; i believe the suggestion made by a number of people in the audience requires us to put a larger focus on the
4:15pm
implementation, the actual impact of how the market/octavia plan matures, what problems poses, and intersections and improvements on market street is something we need to contend with. i consider the project forward looking, and very much in support of all of its aspects. >> commissioner antonini. >> i am supportive. i think it is necessary and desirable. however i agree with those who say that it would be more necessary and more desirable were fewer units, larger units; the argument is not just for families with children but for tracking residents who are here in a more permanent basis. i think we are seeing lots of units being built are being converted as would be the case with the
4:16pm
aaa building and others, into small units to address the workforce; a workforce that won't be here for a long period of time. they likely don't want to be cramped into smaller unit. it's too bad this is not more like 50 units, i'm just throwing a number out there. two bedrooms, 750-sq. ft., will be small; the rooms will be small even if it is a couple or a single individual. i am familiar with a lot of
4:17pm
units and the square footage is, and i have been through them. the one good thing is, and may take pressure off the existing housing stock. we have a lot of housing units that were built as victorians, single-family homes, divided into smaller units over the years. these were originally built as family homes with enough space for families. and maybe we will see more of an ability for people to convert these back to their original sizes by building more the small unit to accommodate that are the market that need smaller units and doesn't want larger, family size units at this time. even the buildings in the 20s and 30s, even if they are one-bedrooms they have gracious room sizes. you feel more comfortable than you do in small units.
4:18pm
for what it is, it is well done, able to get that many units in that amount of space is quite well-designed. i'm going to support it. i will like to see it in a different iteration. on the design, i want to make sure that on the large section of the project fronts market street between the flat iron area and the area at the terminus of the building, we have large areas of sort of a lot of windows, not sure what the material, maybe the architect and tell me if it is metal or stucco or what the exterior siding is. it seems to me that the exception of the few areas, where color has been injected there, a lot of it is white. things that are richer and darker sometimes present better to the street.
4:19pm
i would encourage you and i know you can work with staff -- to try to put friends around the windows or to do something to put some darker colors in those area, to make it look a little bit more than a solid block that is sort of monolithic in its form that runs between the two sites particularly the market street site. that is just my feeling. i don't know how the other commissioners feel. if you want to respond to that. >> fred pollock. commissioner antonini, the window patterning in the bay patterning includes a metal form, in a contrasting color; the windows are framed in this panel, to create this two-story rhythm in the bay. i also want to mention on the
4:20pm
two-bedroom issues i may, there is a range of sizes; indeed the smaller sizes are in the 750 range but they go up to 1100 sq. ft. the building in the back, the walker building has larger, two bedroom units. that is directly accessible by a stair to the courtyard open space; there are a variety of types of two bedrooms. >> thank you. i appreciate that. i see the frame around the windows; if that could be a little bit wider, to give the windows more prominence, something to think about. i also appreciate the fact that the townhouse elements which are the kinds of things to do appeal to families where you have two separate areas of your unit, you have a downstairs and upstairs, we have quite a few of these in this project. i appreciate that. >> i want to be clear that the small building in the back are
4:21pm
stack flats, not multi-level units. >> but there are townhouses? >> there are no townhouses. >> somebody brought that up? >> in one of the public comment. with 88 units you cannot get townhouses in there. >> i live in the market/octavia plan area; it is intriguing i think, the project sponsors have done a great job of respecting the various streets and areas encompassing, lower heights in 15th street, walk-up area, well-done project. there is a variety of unit sizes;
4:22pm
we don't really know what kind of housing families are looking for. we know that larger units but we hear people prefer townhouses, other neighborhoods where there are kids, we have never done a study; we have families that live in sro units and families and large homes. is a variety of reasons of why people live in the houses they live in. some of it has to do with affordability; some of it has to do with the way people value space. some people value large space for the sake of having large space; there's a variety of things that we cannot account for. even when you look at the eastern neighborhood plan, at the end of the day with all of the two-bedroom units, we don't know if two related or unrelated adults live there;
4:23pm
it would be an exiting project to have a student at a university look at the top of houses that appeals to families, and look at san francisco but i don't think we know that answer. the thing that we have asked for are more bedrooms, hopefully it will appeal to families but we have no way to prove that no would we have more information. the issue that people talk about with the traffic, obviously we don't want any curb cuts; we have policy in the city, no new curb-cuts; there is an opportunity to correct that wrong; it's bad enough that you have that garage next door when the walgreen is and the 24-hour fitness have that garage; the issue around inclined is an interesting one; we can talk to mta about some
4:24pm
of the intersections. part of the problem is that some of the left-hand turns are allowed because as commissioner antonini brought up, a lot of people are driving through the neighborhood, not going home, causing traffic congestion. we want to look at maybe one of those issues where we sit down with transportation, and talk about the market/octivia plan area particularly around market street. for this project cannot require anything at the intersection because that is the city agency decision not related to this project specifically; they be something that can be brought up at the cac, for the market/octavia plan. is a good project that listen to what we had envisioned for the market/octavia plan. some people don't like the density. is what we envisioned.
4:25pm
-- -- -- -- focusing on traffic calming, more of the issue. >> i think the project is well-designed, market street as wide as it is. it is appropriate for this type of density; the unit mix is fine. i agree that there are traffic problems with these intersections, not just this one,
4:26pm
and not just this project causing it. it may be appropriate to ask the cac look at this issue; that is where these development fees are going. it is an appropriate recommendation to try to fix not only this intersection but others on market street that have similar problems. that is where the development money goes; where the impact these go. it is appropriate to fix these intersections; we could ask the cac to look into these recommendations. that would be great but i am supportive of the project. >> i believe in public testimony with reference that there is a regulatory -- can the project sponsor respond to that?
4:27pm
>> on behalf of the project sponsor, there is a regulatory region why the fees cannot be used for an independent agreement. we are not aware of it.
4:28pm
>> question about housing ordinance? >> we look at the improvements contemplated. could not find any that were directly related to the issues that we agreed except at the intersection was transit related, it would speed up the crossing market, there were not any that -- you get a menu [indiscernible], can you do one of these, none were needed to available there. we are happy to be part of the discussion described by the folks given testimony.
4:29pm
we are happy to keep discussing. >> i think that there have been several projects that used fees or partial fees. can associate improvements directly to the area where the project sponsor is constructing. i think the challenge raised is specifically for example crossing market street or dealing with traffic turning movement; it would be difficult to have this project in lieu of contribution; it is a city responsibility. the challenge there is, are the impact these enough to address these issues?